FPI / October 13, 2021

Corporate WATCH

Commentary by Joe Schaeffer

Well, it’s out in the open now. An unholy cabal of ruling elites is using the imposed Biden administration to wage open war against the American family and the American worker.

There is a spiritual dimension to this struggle that must be understood if these would-be despots are to be ultimately defeated.

The final goal of those attempting to enact a technocratic “science is settled” tyranny over the citizens of this nation, as most prominently seen at the moment in the coronavirus vaccine mandates, is the overthrowing of God’s Natural Law in order to bring about a new definition of human rights and humanity decreed by a ruling elite.

Utilitarianism – seeing human beings as mere matter rather than creatures formed in the image of God with inherent individual worth – is the evil inner core nestled within the “common good” mantra so often spouted by leading progressive establishment personages today.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, Joe Biden’s chief medical adviser, said on Oct. 3:
 

But you are a member of society… and as a member of society, reaping all the benefits of being a member of society, you have a responsibility to society. And I think each of us, particularly in the context of a pandemic that’s killing millions of people – you have got to look at it and say, there comes a time when you do have to give up what you consider your individual right of making your own decision for the greater good of society.

As WorldTribune documented on Oct. 11, Fauci’s comments are eerily similar to the argument advanced by the authors of a 2020 book titled “The Coming Good Society: Why New Realities Demand New Rights.” A Harvard University Press synopsis states (bold added throughout this column):
 

Drawing on their vast experience as human rights advocates, William Schulz and Sushma Raman challenge us to think hard about how rights evolve with changing circumstances, and what rights will look like ten, twenty, or fifty years from now. Against those who hold that rights are static and immutable, Schulz and Raman argue that rights must adapt to new realities or risk being consigned to irrelevance. To preserve and promote the good society — one that protects its members’ dignity and fosters an environment in which people will want to live — we must at times rethink the meanings of familiar rights and consider the introduction of entirely new rights.

It should come as no surprise that William Schulz and Anthony Fauci share the same outlook on humanity, for they both are devout parishioners of the secular atheist religion known as humanism.

Schulz was named “Humanist of the Year” in 2000 by the American Humanist Association. And Fauci was given the honor in 2021, which he warmly accepted.

In perfect keeping with the elitist theology we see running amok in our ruling circles, Fauci credited his Jesuit high school and college education for instilling in him the worldly values he has today while accepting this honor:



Before we dive more fully into humanism, let’s briefly examine the Christian heresy that is modernist Jesuitism. In 2015, I reported in an article published at the Catholic website Crisis that the chairman of New York City’s St. Patrick’s Day parade, an annual event ostensibly meant to honor a Roman Catholic saint, was a director at a medical foundation involved in the harvesting of fetal tissue derived from murdered babies for research purposes.

Is there anything more utilitarian than using human beings as lab material?

Like Fauci, Dr. John Lahey attributed the values that shaped him to modern progressive Jesuit thought; in his case, that of once-fashionable 20th Century Jesuit intellectual Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

From a Jesuit source on de Chardin:
 

Paleontologist and proponent of a poetic synthesis of the evolutionary perspective of modern science with the Christian worldview. Precursor of today's ecologists in their respect and love for the Earth.

Renowned Catholic philosopher Dietrich von Hildebrand skewered de Chardin, stating that his “theories dehumanize man” by valuing the spirit of the communal above that of the individual:
 

Now, the point we wish to make is that Teilhard himself ignores the value of high natural goods and that, contrary to his claim, a real dehumanization takes place in his monistic pantheism. We have seen that his ideal of collective man and superhumanity necessarily implies a blindness to the real nature of the individual person and, derivatively, to all the plenitude of human life.

As exemplified by de Chardin, modernist Jesuits attempt to reconcile Christianity with the prevailing contemporary spirit of the world. This despite Jesus Christ’s explicit teaching that the Prince of this World is Satan. The chief tenet of this bastardized form of Catholicism is a staunch adherence to the Cult of Progress. This is where the Jesuits meet their atheistic comrades, the humanists.

Humanists are not morally troubled by worldliness in the least, and see no need to come up with clever and complex justifications for it. They are eager to cast all notions of a higher “God” aside.

It should be no surprise then, that declared humanists Schulz and Fauci have both left God behind. “We believe that human beings are responsible for the future; that history is in our hands, not those of an angry God or inexorable fate,” Schulz has said of humanism.

“My outlook has since evolved to align with the concept of making the world a better place rather than being involved in any organized religion,” Fauci told the American Humanist Association in his video address.

These two men didn’t abandon religion. They simply replaced one for another. The Religion of God was supplanted by the Religion of Man.

This takes us directly to the technocratic scientific tyranny we are confronting today.

The humanist philosophy, as stated in essays by its own people, openly declares: The fiendish hoax that is God does nothing to stop disease pandemics. God failed humanity. Science is our True Savior:
 

Even though experiencing historical declines, worship of a speculative creator continues to be practiced by a majority of humans despite the continuing lack of compelling evidence that the entity if it exists is righteous, moral and loving. Scientific statistical analysis was used to disprove the existence of a benign, wise and virtuous creator based on the overwhelming evidence contained in the Megadisasters of the Innocents.

Persistently downplayed or ignored by theologians who are unable to deal with the fatal problem, the suffering and premature death of immature humans and animals is too vast for a supernatural designer to be caring and moral. Having overseen the greatest criminal homicide against humanity, a putative creator lacks the moral authority to ban abortion or murder, or provide sound guidance for humans and their societies. Because any creator is gravely immoral, worship of such a deity in search of divine boons is immoral narcissism, and needs to be abandoned by humanity.

Humanists are not neutral on the subject. They believe organized, sincerely practiced religion – as opposed to that which is innocuously mouthed for reasons of social convention or whatnot, see Pelosi, Nancy P. – is harmful to humanity:
 

Humanists reject the claim that the Bible is the word of God. They are convinced the book was written solely by humans in an ignorant, superstitious, and cruel age. They believe that because the writers of the Bible lived in an unenlightened era, the book contains many errors and harmful teachings.

As believers in man and his modern advancements, humanists strongly embrace vaccines in what can only be described as a sacramental sense. From an AHA press release celebrating “Darwin Day” in 2018:
 

“On this Darwin Day, theists and nontheists alike take time to recognize how the theory of evolution better enables us to combat disease, develop more effective vaccines, and improve the overall quality of human life on this planet,” said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association. “The era of discovery ushered in by Darwin and others continues to influence our understanding of genetics, medicine, biology and countless other scientific fields.”

In May 2019, almost a full year before the coronavirus hysteria broke out, the AHA stated its enthusiastic support for strict vaccine mandates with no right to opt out for religious or philosophical reasons:
 

America is currently experiencing a public health crisis, as many Americans are unvaccinated or not fully up to date with their vaccines. As a result, we have seen outbreaks of diseases like measles which had previously been eradicated.

Thankfully, Oregon is looking to do something about this problem. House Bill 3063 was recently introduced and passed the Oregon House of Representatives, and now awaits consideration by the Oregon Senate. This bill would remove the ability for parents to decline required immunizations against diseases on behalf of their child for reasons other than medical considerations. Essentially, if this bill becomes law, all religious and philosophical exemptions from vaccine requirements would be removed, and only medical exemptions would remain.

This is Anthony Fauci’s world. These are his people.

The AHA Annual Conference honoring Fauci was officially sponsored by the following groups:

Secular Coalition For America

Recovering From Religion

American Atheists

Anne Laurie Gaylor, Co-President of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) spoke at the conference, along with Fauci.

Who is FFRF? They're the ones who run those smug and obnoxious ads featuring Ron Reagan Jr.

Steven Pinker, the Harvard "cognitive psychologist" who has been closely tied to disgraced pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, is "Honorary Director" of the Board for the organization, according to its 2020 Year in Review. From Pinker's speech at the 2017 FFRF annual convention. Note the words he uses:
 

The point of my book, Enlightenment Now, is that there is an alternative system of beliefs and values [to religion], namely the ideals of the Enlightenment, also sometimes known as classical liberalism, secular humanism, or the Open Society. In a sentence, it’s that we can use knowledge to enhance human flourishing.

It all begins with reason, with the conviction that traditional sources of belief are generators of delusion — including faith, revelation, tradition, dogma, authority, charisma, mysticism, divination, visions, conventional wisdom, gut feelings, subjective certainty and the hermeneutic parsing of sacred texts. In place of these generators of error, we must rely on reason.

Pinker like Fauci in 2021, was named "Humanist of the Year" in 2006.

Let’s get back to utilitarianism, that essential creed of the modern technocratic progressive scientist.

The 1974 Humanist of the Year award went to Rev. Joseph Fletcher, an Episcopalian priest and eugenicist who became an atheist. Fletcher is a signer of the Humanist Manifesto.

From the Manifesto... any of this sound familiar?
 

The next century can be and should be the humanistic century. Dramatic scientific, technological, and ever-accelerating social and political changes crowd our awareness. We have virtually conquered the planet, explored the moon, overcome the natural limits of travel and communication; we stand at the dawn of a new age, ready to move farther into space and perhaps inhabit other planets. Using technology wisely, we can control our environment, conquer poverty, markedly reduce disease, extend our life-span, significantly modify our behavior, alter the course of human evolution and cultural development, unlock vast new powers, and provide humankind with unparalleled opportunity for achieving an abundant and meaningful life.

Fletcher presented a report to the 1976 National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The published text of the papers can be seen here. Fletcher authored Article 3.

An insightful 1976 critique of these papers by Juliana Geran Pilon was published by Villanova University School of Law titled "Cost-Benefit Ethics: The Utilitarian Approach to Fetal Research."

Fletcher is quoted:

"The question is not whether a fetus has vital signs but whether it should be brought to live birth. If not, surely research and experimentation are in order."

Pilon prophetically sees where this utilitarianism will lead:
 

Reverend Fletcher is, again, straightforward: "Medicine must be delivered from the kinds of ethics which follow principles when following them means we have to condemn and nullify the acquisition of useful know-how in medicine's effort to save and improve human life." In other words, some human lives can be risked at the expense of other lives. Reverend Fletcher continues: "If 'principles' block medicine's healing task, so much the worse for such principles.""

This is indeed shocking. If these are the words of an "ethicist," what can we expect from the technocrats? Such a statement is not without grave implications for the future of morality in this society. For once we have abandoned principle, what is left to defend any human rights?

A 2018 article at First Things emphasizes the very key point that Fletcher paved the way for the tiresome rise of “expertism” that is such a notable marker of our ruling progressive establishment today:
 

Joseph Fletcher (1905–1991) was one the most influential philosophers and bioethicists of the twentieth century. His advocacy blazed the path for many of the radical social transitions we are experiencing today. He gained fame as the prime proponent of “situational ethics,” popularly known as social relativism. But his work in bioethics eroding the sanctity of human life and promoting a utilitarian hedonism was just as society-altering....

This may sound awful to readers, but Fletcher’s influence was so pronounced that Albert R. Jonsen, author of The Birth of Bioethics, once described him as the “patriarch of bioethics.” He could also be called its most prescient prophet. Indeed, it is stunning to consider how fundamentally society has accepted Fletcher’s philosophical advocacy.

Albert R. Jonsen was a former Jesuit priest who resigned from the active priesthood in 1976. He was one of the modernist progressive priests, mostly Jesuits, who helped ease the path for the Catholic Kennedy political dynasty to publicly embrace abortion.

The modernist progressive technocracy is a religion. What’s more, it is a virulently fanatical one. And, as we have seen with the coronavirus vaccine mandates, it relishes the thought of publicly burning at the stake those who would dare deny it.

Joe Schaeffer is the former Managing Editor of The Washington Times National Weekly Edition. His columns appear at WorldTribune.com and FreePressInternational.org.

Free Press International